Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Four Female Hikers Missing 20 Miles Northeast of Huntington

I originally posted on this thread because Bee asked a question, Steve answered that question, and I thought Steve’s answer needed clarification. I explained how “Cancel SOS” works and pointed out that sending “OK” doesn’t send anything to the sheriff or other authorities.

We all know that some people go out unprepared and get themselves into trouble they should have avoided. We know that people who stupidly get themselves into trouble sometimes correctly use SOS to get rescued, rather than die. We also know that people use SOS when there is no real emergency and with no regard for the costs or risks of the resulting SAR. I didn’t address these issues because I was responding to Bee and Steve, not pontificating about personal responsibility.

If you are out in the wilderness, SOS may be the only way you can call for help. If you use SOS and later decide that you don’t need SAR, “Cancel SOS” may be the only way to communicate this. Why you sent the original SOS and why you changed your mind are irrelevant. What the sheriff should do or will do upon receiving the “Cancel SOS” is irrelevant. What you think the sheriff will do is also irrelevant. Sending the “Cancel SOS” is the best you can do with no other means of communication.


Dale, calling me “irresponsible” for simply providing factual information on an often-misunderstood feature of SPOT is being a jerk.

Bob

Thank you for clarifying your post and making you position explicit.


The concluding sentence is precisely what I consider irresponsible. Having a Spot with a cancel button does not make the Spot to only means of communication available. If the situation was significant enough to require calling for a SAR then it's worth doing whatever it takes, including hiking your butt to a trail head and getting into communication with the applicable authorities to close out the response. And you are right, that doesn't depend on why the call was made or what the sheriff has decided to do. Whoever made (or requested) the call bought into that responsibility when the call was made in the first place. I don't think the rules are different for people with cell phones or Spots or schedules they would like to keep. I believe that is what responsibility requires. I'll be whatever that makes me to those who suggest that the new technology removes the need for responsible behavior if it isn't as convenient as their new toy.

saltydog, that's my "Discuss."

Dale B. Dalrymple

Dale, you seem to have trouble expressing yourself clearly, as the silly questions and YMMV testify. Why didn’t you just say that you need to let the authorities know that you are OK as soon as you get out of the wilderness, even if you have sent a ”Cancel SOS”? I would have agreed with you. There was no need for you to start this pissing contest and call me irresponsible for clarifying Steve’s post.

You also seem to have trouble understanding simple English. The paragraph you quoted above began with “If you are out in the wilderness.” The entire paragraph, including the sentence you find so irresponsible, dealt with what you should do in the wilderness. When you are in the wilderness, sending the “Cancel SOS” IS the best you can do with no other means of communication. What course of action would be better? Sending nothing?

Finally, you seem determined to play the straw man game with me. As Steve said, “Leaving out any opinion is not supporting the idea of walking off without contacting the authorities.” I never even hinted that I thought sending “Cancel SOS” was all that you should do. It isn’t, but it’s better than nothing. As I said above, you need to let the authorities know that you are OK as soon as you get out of the wilderness, even if you have sent a ”Cancel SOS.”

If you find it necessary to attack me yet again, see if you can do it without deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Well told, sir.

bobpickering has been too puffed up for a fight with anyone with the nerve to ask him a question that he doesn't seem to have noticed, let alone responded to, what I have said about the topic. What I said was:



Are -you- capable of discussing the issue? (That would be like agreeing or disagreeing with the statements above or suggesting something else.)

Dale B. Dalrymple

Certainly. Any time you care to abandon the ad hominem, non-sequitur, straw argument and hypothesis contrary to fact as your primary rhetorical devices, I am all yours. Until then, I believe my endorsement of Bob's position is all that is warranted.

I'll take that as a no. You have a lot of names you like to call. Actually, I tried to get away from the turmoil between me and Bob. I asked you to take a free shot at what I had suggested to Bob and he had been unwilling to comment. I didn't expect you to agree on content or form. You chose to leave that out of the quote leading out your post the question I asked you:


I really would like to have seen what your analysis of the point I posted to you or what you thought Bob's position meant in your own words, without just quotes from his posts to see if I was just misunderstand what he meant but couldn't be enticed to say in any other way I might understand better. Bob quotes my entire post but refuses to comment on the only points where I think we differ. It may be that I agree with the content but object only to the means of expression (sorry, that's a type of distinction I think is important), but people who refuse to try to communicate like you and Bob at this point in the thread can't be forced to. You're the ones calling names and refusing to communicate.

Dale B. Dalrymple

I admit that due to the fact that most of my life, I communicated with non-english speaking people, or folks who had minimal familiarity with the language.... I learned to love brevity.

Can I state some points of position as painfully extracted from the discourse?

1. SPOT, Sat Phones, Cell phones are the common mode of backcountry 911, currently.

2. SPOT has a cancel mode, the other two devices are subject to signal availability for cancellation.

3. A perceived view is that "Cancellation" of 911 via SPOT is enough to consider the case closed on the emergency call out.

4. Sat phone & cell would require a form of secondary communication if no signal was attained.

QUERIES ARRISING FROM ABOVE PREMISE

1. IS a cancellation of 911 via SPOT enough effort to carry one without further effort to contact SAR?

2. IS contact with an outgoing group of hikers enough effort to consider case closed?

3. IN ALL CASES is direct contact a mandate, or at the very least an expected courtesy?

4. MUST direct contact be made immediatedly as numero uno priority once the emergency has passed, or is "as soon as possible/convenient" (after cancelling via "button" or word of mouth) when you hit the end of the JMT? (and the emergency was in Happy Isles)

I didn't say "as soon as you get out of the wilderness" because I think "as soon as you get out of the wilderness" is wrong. I wrote my alternative: "hiking your butt to a trail head and getting into communication with the applicable authorities to close out the response" and you have now quoted it. I think one means to continue on the pre-planed route as if nothing has happened and the other means do it now. Why haven't you responded to what Ive posted? Which do you think is what you are saying, or do you mean something else? I don't think we're saying the same thing. But what you think is for you to decide, so can you communicate about it?

I posted because I think that what you posted will encourage people to limit their responses to sending a cancel and ignoring the issue until their plans take them out of the wilderness. I don't know if that is what you intend or what you believe they should do. Those won't alter the effect of the words you posted unless you become willing to talk about them. I don't think that the effect I expect is desirable, and the effect does not depend on whether that is your intent or not.

Providing only factual information in the net without providing any information about how it should be used in context can rightly considered to be dangerous. fishmonger and SierraNevada have wrestled with this in the Ursack discussion, for example:
Fishmonger in ursack thread...
"You are the problem online - where people get their guidance and inspiration for what they end up doing. I guarantee you that 50% of those who head out with the Ursack have nowhere near the experience you or Skurka have ..."
SierraNevada in ursack thread
"I agree with you that internet information can cause people to make mistakes and I hope I've not written anything that has motivated someone to do something they shouldn't have done. ..."


If you look in my post that you have quoted, I said:" hiking your butt to a trail head and getting into communication with the applicable authorities to close out the response" I think that is better than a thru hiker waiting weeks and hundreds of miles for their next planned trailhead resupply outside the wilderness. Is that a hypothetical response? Of course. Is it a reasonable hypothesis for the audience of the Whitney Zone? Of course. By the way, is "no other means of communication" a hypothesis? Yes, a false one. If you have a 911 call to cancel you must be able to "hike your butt to a trailhead". If I'm going to be guilty of calling names, I'll call "hike your butt to a trailhead" out as "another means of communication" and "responsible".

Steve said that, and for just between you, Steve and me, he's right, and for your intent he's right, but for anything that gets posted on the net he's wrong. You are welcome to call it a straw man game, but I believe that people who post on the net are responsible for how we can expect our posts on the internet to be interpreted. You may only do dayhikes and the expressions "let the authorities know that you are OK as soon as you get out of the wilderness" and "hiking your butt to a trail head and getting into communication with the applicable authorities to close out the response" may mean the same to your dayhikes, but you posted in front of weekenders and JMT hikers and thru hikers who don't know that you don't care about or aren't able to communicate with or just won't communicate with people with practices other than your own.
If you were a new hiker reading to us from the manual of the Spot she just bought in preparation for her upcoming first day hike, I wouldn't have posted. But you are an experienced and respected mountaineer and what you post on the net will be read and interpreted from different viewpoints whether you intend it or like it or not. That's what happens when -you- post. Its up to you to decide whether you care or not.
Please consider responding to what I have said instead of asking again why I didn't just say I agreed with what you have said. I don't agree with the interpretation your post will receive and I have suggesting an alternative you have not responded to. I think they are different. Don't you? What did I say or assume about the 911 situation or the internet that you disagree with? I did assume that you are responsible for the effect of your posts on the audience you post them to. Do you agree, disagree, don't care?

Dale B. Dalrymple

Thank you for the summary. I hope discussing them will clarify people's positions.

1. dbd: Yes
2. dbd: All devices are subject to signal, battery and casualty limitations.

3. A perceived view is that "Cancellation" of 911 via SPOT is enough to consider the case closed on the emergency call out.
dbd: I would say that 3 may be perceived as true but is not an adequate response. See 3 below.

4. Sat phone & cell would require a form of secondary communication if no signal was attained.
dbd: Do you mean to make or to cancel a 911 call? No signal means that no call is made.

QUERIES ARISING FROM ABOVE PREMISE

1. IS a cancellation of 911 via SPOT enough effort to carry on without further effort to contact SAR?
dbd: I would say no. What do published sheriff and SAR group rules say?

2. IS contact with an outgoing group of hikers enough effort to consider case closed?
dbd: I don't know. How would you determine how highly the SAR agency would evaluate the capability of the outgoing group? Who would they trust? I think that's their call. What do published sheriff and SAR group rules say?

3. IN ALL CASES is direct contact a mandate, or at the very least an expected courtesy?
dbd: I would say yes. I've seen people try to use the phone to cancel a phone call 911. I've never seen the authorities allow the effort to succeed without some kind of personal outside contact. And I think that is the right policy. What do published sheriff and SAR group rules say?

4. MUST direct contact be made immediately as numero uno priority once the emergency has passed, or is "as soon as possible/convenient" (after cancelling via "button" or word of mouth) when you hit the end of the JMT? (and the emergency was in Happy Isles)
dbd: I would say at best safe cruising speed by best safe route. That's a lot of wiggle room, I think: don't kill yourself and don't take side trips to sight see. (SAR folks try not to kill themselves too, but they don't always succeed.)

Dale B. Dalrymple

I did not word #4 very well. What I meant to say is "THere is a good chance that while there was a signal when the 911 was made, it may no longer exist when the need for cancellation presents itself", so the need for a back-up re-contact plan would almost be guaranteed when using a cell phone. In fact, my signals are so spotty, that it is almost always the case that I cannot check in regularly, thus, creating MORE anxiety than if I said "I will bee out of range. altogether"

I feel much more understanding about how you stand at this point, Dale. I hope that others go through my informal list and weigh in, this way I don't have to slog through so much text to cross reference opinions.

"What is the SAR accepted protocol on cancelling a 911?" This has been my overarching query since the thread began. If I get a chance, I will do a little survey of the few SARs I know. Bob West, Do you still have contacts that you could pose this query to?

Bee,

I recently read an article on the use of tablets and mobile phones in the wilderness. The take away is people have become emboldened to do marginal things because they have decided to carry this iffy technology to make up for a lack of skills; thus, making the life of SAR more "interesting".

Since the SPOT's cancel 911 does not give you feed back, I would have to say the user is responsible for personal contact with government official who can communicate the cancellation be it a volunteer patroling the trails with a radio or a sworn ranger. If this means ending a trip so be it.

All right, since everyone insists on discussing SPOT instead of the situation that actually DID develop here with the 911 call, I give up and hereby throw the following gasoline on the fire:

Try This

Those videos of the harrowing night with the mountain lion are riveting.

Amen to what you said. It certainly is the person's responsibility to let law enforcement know that they are okay. Speaking as a retired SAR troop...I can recall the intense frustration and not a little anger at people who came out on their own okay but didn't tell anyone! In the meantime we continued looking for them, losing time and money off our day jobs.

Yes, people are taking electronic means of calling for help a little too casually, instead of taken necessary steps to be cautious and prepared before setting out.

What if the Spot doesn't connect or there is no cell-phone connectivity, and nobody to hear one's plaintiff calls for help? Why, there's only one thing left to do, pilgrim, but bend over (if able) and kiss your ass goodbye...LOL.